Let's See Your Toned English Milled Silver!

[Nordle11]

7 hours ago, jaggy said:

That isa nice looking sixpence!

Seconded! Great detail on such a small coin  

[brg5658]

On 1/20/2016 at 2:03 PM, Paulus said:

Re-photographed using new set-up

 

Really nice sixpence @Paulus!  And, your photography is really good!

[brg5658]

My shilling finally arrived today...

Edited January 23, 2016 by brg5658

[Paulus]

10 hours ago, brg5658 said:

 

Really nice sixpence @Paulus!  And, your photography is really good!

That means a lot BRG, especially as your own photography is so well regarded by many (including me!)

[Paulus]

34 minutes ago, brg5658 said:

My shilling finally arrived today...

That's fairly extreme toning! At first glance the shoulder has a little too much wear to merit MS 64, what say others?

[ozjohn]

Don't send it to CGS for regrading they will be sure to reject a toned coin like your one.

[brg5658]

There is no wear on this coin.  The shoulder is not 100% struck up, but it is lustrous and no signs of any circulation or wear in hand.  Weak strike is not equal to "wear" -- at least not on this side of the pond.   The coin is really hard to photograph given the almost glassy iridescent toning over both sides of the coin.  There are faint adjustment marks across the bust, where a bit of metal was removed before it was struck.  The reverse glows, and all four crowns are very well struck.  Just my personal (and probably biased) opinions.  I have seen a lot of this "common" ESC-1147 issue, and they don't come much nicer than this one in terms of eye appeal, original surfaces, and luster.

[brg5658]

2 minutes ago, ozjohn said:

Don't send it to CGS for regrading they will be sure to reject a toned coin like your one.

Yes, we've discussed this at length before.  CGS tends to prefer overdipped, lightly cleaned, 300-400 year old untoned silver.  

The fact is that silver tones with age.  There is no such thing as a blast white "original" silver coin that is 300 years old.

[Paulus]

3 minutes ago, brg5658 said:

Yes, we've discussed this at length before.  CGS tends to prefer overdipped, lightly cleaned, 300-400 year old untoned silver.  

The fact is that silver tones with age.  There is no such thing as a blast white "original" silver coin that is 300 years old.

I disagree with both points regarding CGS and toning. My own preference is for attractive toning, and I have only had 1 coin rejected for possible AT by CGS. Those accepted include:

and

 

I would question an un-toned 100+ year old silver coin straight away, as would CGS.

 

 

[brg5658]

2 minutes ago, Paulus said:

I disagree with both points regarding CGS and toning. My own preference is for attractive toning, and I have only had 1 coin rejected for possible AT by CGS. Those accepted include:

and

 

I would question an un-toned 100+ year old silver coin straight away, as would CGS.

 

 

Ok, @Paulus called me out (rightfully so) on my hyperbole.   My point was moreso that I would never send anything to CGS from the USA anyway.  There is ZERO market for CGS graded coins in the Americas.  Not to mention, I don't really care what brand of plastic it is in for the next 30-35 years while I own it -- so regrades, cracks, etc. are just a waste of money.  It's just a means to protect it.

 

PS -- @Paulus, I like that 1911 Florin!

[Paulus]

18 minutes ago, brg5658 said:

Ok, @Paulus called me out (rightfully so) on my hyperbole.   My point was moreso that I would never send anything to CGS from the USA anyway.  There is ZERO market for CGS graded coins in the Americas.  Not to mention, I don't really care what brand of plastic it is in for the next 30-35 years while I own it -- so regrades, cracks, etc. are just a waste of money.  It's just a means to protect it.

 

PS -- @Paulus, I like that 1911 Florin!

I did not think for one moment that you (or any US collector) would consider CGS for grading even UK coins, as you say they mean nothing on your side of the pond. And reasons for using a TPG are many and varied ... my comments were based on the pics alone. The toning is quite strong, and I would normally expect a better shoulder for the grade that's all ... one thing I have to get better at is this weak strike thing .. in my mind the shoulder is one of the high points ... believe me BRG weak strike is not equal to "wear" over here either! Please keep posting  @brg5658

Edited January 23, 2016 by Paulus

[brg5658]

I'm realizing how bad my first posted images were of this coin.  Here are some better images I just took -- and a zoom in of the shoulder area.  

[MACKSILKY.]

Cracking shilling BRG very nice.

[PWA 1967]

5 hours ago, brg5658 said:

Yes, we've discussed this at length before.  CGS tends to prefer overdipped, lightly cleaned, 300-400 year old untoned silver.  

The fact is that silver tones with age.  There is no such thing as a blast white "original" silver coin that is 300 years old.

They prefer overdipped,lightly cleaned................Amazing 

[Paulus]

11 hours ago, brg5658 said:

I'm realizing how bad my first posted images were of this coin.  Here are some better images I just took -- and a zoom in of the shoulder area.  

MUCH better pics Brandon! Nice coin

[brg5658]

9 hours ago, PWA 1967 said:

They prefer overdipped,lightly cleaned................Amazing 

Well, have you been on the londoncoins website lately?  They have plenty of really, really unattractive dull gray/silver untoned and in my opinion lightly hairlined (cleaned) old silver coins in CGS holders.  My comment was definitely hyperbole, but also based on some reality in that light cleaning on coins with full detail seems to be overlooked a bit more by CGS that it would be by either of the two main TPGs in the USA.  I don't want this to become a thread hijacked by TPG banter, so I'll leave it at that.

[PWA 1967]

Sorry your the expert and value your opinion ,i didnt want to interupt a thread .

I just posted as your comments appeared a bit biased and wasnt sure what you meant.

As you state you stick to what you know and are happy with.

The thing that surprises me is someone with all your knowledge and never going to sell them for 35 years why you get them slabbed in the first place.

Pete.

[brg5658]

1 hour ago, PWA 1967 said:

Sorry your the expert and value your opinion ,i didnt want to interupt a thread .

I just posted as your comments appeared a bit biased and wasnt sure what you meant.

As you state you stick to what you know and are happy with.

The thing that surprises me is someone with all your knowledge and never going to sell them for 35 years why you get them slabbed in the first place.

Pete.

I didn't "get" it slabbed, it came that way. I have bought plenty of expensive raw coins but sometimes the nicest coins available in the USA are already in plastic. Heritage, Stacks, Goldberg, etc. by and large sell slabbed coins. It is what it is. 

[Coinery]

21 hours ago, brg5658 said:

I'm realizing how bad my first posted images were of this coin.  Here are some better images I just took -- and a zoom in of the shoulder area.  

What a difference a re-shoot makes!

[azda]

On 23. Januar 2016 at 2:58 AM, Paulus said:

I disagree with both points regarding CGS and toning. My own preference is for attractive toning, and I have only had 1 coin rejected for possible AT by CGS. Those accepted include:

and

 

I would question an un-toned 100+ year old silver coin straight away, as would CGS.

 

 

Please do as i don't think it possible to dip/clean a proof without ruining it somehow.

Edited January 24, 2016 by azda

[Coinery]

1 hour ago, azda said:

Please

I 100% agree with this! Leave the proofs alone unless you like what you see...you'll never artificially make a better coin of them. Lovely phwoar coin, by the way. 

I do hate the fragility of proofs, you can never EVER touch them. You can't even degrease them with acetone, as it smears horribly.

maybe some of that stuff from over the pond might do a better job? ?

[azda]

1 hour ago, Coinery said:

I 100% agree with this! Leave the proofs alone unless you like what you see...you'll never artificially make a better coin of them. Lovely phwoar coin, by the way. 

I do hate the fragility of proofs, you can never EVER touch them. You can't even degrease them with acetone, as it smears horribly.

maybe some of that stuff from over the pond might do a better job? ?

I wouldn't touch them either, it either appeals or you leave it alone, it won't get better being artificially improved 

[VickySilver]

OK, I admit, I clean proofs with acetone and dish detergent (not at the same time) but use the best grade acetone - never a rub or smear and rinse liberally with aforementioned mild dish detergent and then much more water and tamp dry with very good results, if I can self-report. However, I would on first instinct NOT TOUCH a proof and am very careful on a coin by coin basis which I might use these techniques on. I have had very good results if using sense on this...

[Coinery]

I've always found that the acetone evaporates from the surface so fast that it leaves a smear at its periphery. Hard to explain but if you put a small drop (only as an example) onto the field of the coin, it (I'm guessing) forces any surface residue/grease to the periphery of the acetone 'bead' and then quickly evaporates to leave a circular ring/smear in its place. Of course, putting a flood of it on the coin replicates this to a greater degree, at least in my experience.

i genuinely salute you if you can pull it off, I'd love to be able to. I've long since given up with decontaminating high-mirror proofs, preferring to leave them to someone else, you perhaps?

no, I have one very strict rule with mirror proofs, and that is I have to like them as they are, or walk on.

don't get me wrong, I'm brave enough to play around with anything currency, and always do, even with hammered. Though with hammered it's generally nothing other than an exercise which says 'I love you, coin'!

[VickySilver]

Hmm, not my experience, although not sure what contaminants you've run into! Another method is to flood a white cotton high nap (and very clean) towel with acetone and tamp the surface....I guess writing procedures down on the internet is one thing, the doing another. A bit far away, but PM me if you are ever on this side of the pond and see if I can arrange a demo.

I will confess to having quite a bit of chemistry along the way, so the use of solvents a bit of second nature. The dangerous method I would NOT recommend is electrolysis - and I don't mean hair removal. I've had good results, and disastrous results; the best was a proof 1936 penny that came out superbly, the worst an unfortunate currency1886 half crown that was spoiled.